Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 10 of about 163 results (0.021 seconds)Philips India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)LC119Tri(Delhi)
1. These three appeals are presented by the above-captioned appellants against a common order passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune in order No. P 338/93 dated 31-12-1993. In terms of that order, he dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants against the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune denying them the benefit of Notification 57/93, dated 28-2-1993.2. The facts of this case are that the appellants before us are engaged in the manufacture of consumer electrical products like radio, stereo recorder, cassette recorder and parts thereof falling under Chapters 8527.00, 8529.00, etc. of the Central Excise Tariff. The radio sets manufactured by the appellants are having in-built facility like sound recording and reproducing appliances. The appellants classified their goods under Chapter 8527.00 and claimed benefit of Notification 57/93, dated 28-2-1993 which allows concessional rate of duty to radio sets including transisto...
Tag this Judgment!Tek Chand and anr. Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996(25)ARBLR375(Delhi); 61(1996)DLT136
Anil Dev Singh, J.(1) Admit This is an appeal against the older of the learned Single Judge dated May 5,1995 whereby the appellants are required to provide burned wire fencing in and around space demarcated as per report of the Commissioner dated April 29, 1992 as a condition precedent for the respondents to vacate the area under their occupation and hand over the possession of to the appellants. (2) The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under: (3) In the year i975 the appellants let out a shop and an open area to Ram Narain, deceased near G.T.Road, Azadpur, Delhi in regard to which ultimately they obtained an order of eviction against him. The order of eviction was confirmed by tm High Court in Sag No. 66 of 1988 on October 10,1988 and an Special Leave Petition against the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter Ram Narain filed a suit No. 2212 of 1988 for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that the order of eviction passed against him ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurdeep Singh Sabharwal Vs. Narinder Singh Sabharwal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)641; 1995(35)DRJ579
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated September 15, 1995. By that order, ex-parte order of injunction granted against the appellant on July 25, 1995 has been confirmed and the appellant has been restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the partnership business of M/s.Sabharwal's at 51, Punchkuin Road, New Delhi and 'from holding out to the public that the appellant is related with the business of the partnership'. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under:-(2) On July 2, 1995 the respondents instituted a suit (Suit No-1712/95) against the appellant for permanent injunction. The parties are related to each other. The appellant is the son of Davinder Singh. The First respondent Narinder Singh Sabharwal is the father of Davinder Singh, but the latter is alleged to have been adopted by Harbans Singh,deceased brother of the First respondent. The second and third respondents are the sons of the first respo...
Tag this Judgment!Sahil Marwah Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)219; 1996(36)DRJ19
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) The petitioner has in this .writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Article 227 challenged the act of respondent No.1 in declining him permission to file a suit against United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (for short 'UNHCR') for payment of his share of rent for the premises, namely, 14 Jor Bagh, New Delhi. (2) Through letter, annexure J, dated 30.9.1994 the petitioner was informed on his request by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India that it regrets its inability to give requisite permission for filing suit against UNHCR. Petitioner was informed to submit a succession certificate to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for his dues or alternatively the petitioner was asked to obtain consent/No Objection of the other Lessers and forwarded it to the Ministry to enable the Ministry to resolve the matter amicably with UNHCR. Petitioner again represented. Through letter, annexure M, dated 9.12....
Tag this Judgment!Management of Swatantra Bharat Mills Vs. Workmen of Swatantra Bharat M ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)979; 61(1996)DLT557; 1995(35)DRJ530; (1996)IILLJ67Del
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (1) Thirty five workmen of a statutory canteen established by the Mills (managed by DCM) under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 to cater to the 5000 workers in the Mill, have been struggling for the last 25 years to get over a preliminary objection raised by the appellant-management in regard to the maintainability of the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.(2) This appeal by the Management deals with the correctness of the award dated 16.1.71 passed against the workmen. The award was set aside by the learned Single Judge on 30.11.83 holding that the reference is maintainable before the Tribunal. While the Tribunal held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the mill and the canteen workers, the learned Single Judge took the other view, holding that such relationship existed and set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Tribunal by judgment dated 30.11.83 and the Tribunal has now given its fresh decis...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Salam Vs. Hans Raj
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi481; 1996RLR71
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) It is unfortunate that though the eviction petition of 1979 was allowed by the Rent Controller on 6-4-1981, the decree could not be executed for the last 14 years, because of the pendency of this reference. (2) This is a reference to a Full Bench made by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 4-12-1981. (3) The reference was made by the learned Single Judge for the purpose of deciding the correctness of the Division Bench ruling of the Court in Gurditta Mal vs. Bal Sarup 1980 IRCI 651(1) and whether another Single Judge of this Court, was right in dissenting from it in Gurditta Mal vs. Bal Sarup (1980) Rlr 136 (2). The Single Judge's view was in consonance with another Division Bench decision in Jagdish Prasad vs. Phoolwati Devi 1980 Rlr 367 (3). The question relates to the power of the Rent Controller to entert am an application for condensation of delay filed by the tenant along with the application for leave to defend. The referring order refers to the c...
Tag this Judgment!B.L. Kapur Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT55; (1996)IILLJ863Del
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) This Lpa has been filed by the appellant-employee for setting aside the orders/judgment dated 21.2.92 of the learned Single Judge in Cwp 2513/84 in which, after holding that principles of natural justice were violated, the learned Single Judge did not set aside the order of dismissal dated 11.6.84 passed by the respondent. The learned Single Judge did not also awarded direct reinstatement of the appellant in the service of respondents with full back wages and consequential relief. He merely directed a fresh inquiry retaining the dismissal order as a provisional order. This according to the employee is illegal. A contention is also raised in regard to the further enquiry to be conducted by the respondent and it is that if dismissal order is not set aside, no further inquiry can have been ordered as there is no relationship of master and servant, if the dismissal order is to continue. (2) The facts of the case are as under: The appellant joined service in the r...
Tag this Judgment!Marathwada Alloy Steels Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)1040; [1998]91CompCas419(Delhi); 61(1996)DLT548; 1995(35)DRJ507
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 9th May,1994 passed by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called the BIFR) and the appellate order dated 9th February,1995 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called the AAIFR). The Bifr under the impugned order held that inspire of ample opportunities given to the petitioner company for submission of a viable revival scheme, such scheme had not been submitted by the petitioner or its promoters to the satisfaction of the BIFR. On appeal by the company, this order was confirmed by the Aaifr by its order dated 2nd February,1995. These two orders have been challenged by the company in this appeal.(2) The main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner company, which has directed to be wound up by the Bifr, is that the Bank of Maharasthra, the main creditor, was throughout cooperating wi...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Chopra and anr. Vs. Sharda Devi 2 ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)763; 60(1995)DLT857
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The appellant filed the present eviction petition in August 1977against two respondents,nainely,Sharda Devi and Ms. Ranjita Shalini for their eviction from the suit premises comprising of ground floor of House No. 122, Golf Links, New Delhi on the grounds contained under Clauses (b) and (d) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Ground (b) relates to sub-letting while ground (d) relates to residential premises not being occupied by the tenant or any member of his family for a period nf six months immediately before the date of filing of the eviction petition. (2) According to the appellants one Mahadevan was the tenant in the premises. His tenancy had been duly terminated through a notice dated 27th February, 1968 served on him on 1st March 1968. After the service of the said notice an eviction petition had been filed by the appellants herein against Mahadevan alleging that he had sub-let the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Devinder Singh and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT869; 1996RLR101
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The petitioners filed an eviction petition on the grounds contained in Clauses (a) and (j) of the proviso to Sub-section (l ) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 17th November, 1989 for eviction of the respondent from suit premises located at Premises No. 3474, Nicholson Road, Delhi. The premises had been let out to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 170.75p excluding water and electricity charges. (2) A notice dated 1st May, 1986 claiming the arrears of rent with effect from 1st August, 1985 had been duly served on the respondent through its Commissioner on 3rd May, I 986. inspire of the service of the said notice the respondent had failed to pay the arrears of rent within two months. The eviction petition as already stated was filed on 17th November, 1989. It was stated in para 19 of the eviction petition that the permission of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act was obtaine...
Tag this Judgment!